You are here

Floundering of American Imperialist Hegemony

Submitted by Internationalism USA on 31 December, 2004 - 00:26

Six months ago when US imperialism began its invasion of Iraq
the ICC predicted that "far from resolving the crisis of
American leadership, the current war can only take it to new
levels"(Resolution on the International Situation, Point 11,
15th Congress of the ICC, March 2003). We said that the war in
Iraq would lead to growing instability in the Middle East - in
Iraq and Israel/Palestine in particular, that Iraq would become a
quagmire for US imperialism, that far from solving the problems of
the challenge to its imperialist hegemony, the US would face
increasing difficulties throughout the world, and that the war
would aggravate the economic crisis facing the American
bourgeoisie at home. Events in Iraq (see Iraq: A Quagmire for US
Imperialism, p.4), in Israel/Palestine (see p.5) have amply
confirmed these predictions. Because events happen so quickly in
the current period, it is critically important to understand the
framework in which these events occur. There are perhaps six key
elements to keep in mind: the impct of capitalist decomposition on
imperialist tensions; the strategic response of US imperialism to
the growing challenges to its hegemony; the contradictory impact
of this strategy; the irrationality of war in the period of
capitalist decadence, particularly in its phase of decomposition;
the simultaneous existence of a tendency towards the formation of
new blocs and the countervailing tendency of capitalist
decomposition hindering the formation of blocs in the current
period; and the acceleration of history.

Impact of decomposition on the imperialist
terrain

The social impasse in the class struggle caused by the
inability of the ruling class to impose its solution to the global
economic crisis that emerged in the late 1960s - imperialist world
war- and the inability of the proletariat to impose its solution -
world revolution-triggered the onset of the decomposition of the
capitalist system. One of the central manifestations of this
decomposition was the collapse of Russian imperialism at the end
of the 1980s.The breakdown of the bloc system in place since the
end of World War II, as we have demonstrated often in various
texts, ushered in a growing tendency towards chaos on the
international level. The cement that had held nations together in
the blocs, forcing them to subordinate their own narrow
imperialist appetites for the good of the bloc in the
confrontation with its rival - to accept the discipline imposed by
the bloc leader - crumbled into dust during the 1990s. Each
nation, no matter how insignificant its economic, political or
military stature, was emboldened to increasingly play its own card
on the imperialist terrain, to scheme for expansion at the expense
of rivals, in a way that was unheard of for half a century during
the cold war.

This tendency of "each for himself" on the
imperialist level had drastic consequences for American
imperialism, the nominal victor in the cold war, when Russian
imperialism imploded in the beginning of the 1990s, because it
signaled the emergence of a general tendency towards unprecedented
challenges to US domination and hegemony emanating from its
erstwhile allies. For half a century, US imperialist policy makers
expected and received general obedience from its bloc members,
even for decisions that were taken unilaterally in Washington. US
imperialism became accustomed to blowing the whistle and everyone
would fall in line, but now US imperialism would blow the whistle
and its old allies would fall into line reluctantly, petulantly,
or increasingly would not even listen. The American triumph in the
cold war increasingly seemed to be a hollow victory. one that had
opened a period of serious difficulties for American imperialism.

American imperialism's strategic response
to its leadership crisis

The response to this growing crisis of US leadership led to a
readjustment of American imperialist strategy during the 1990s.
"Faced with the collapse of the rival Russian bloc at the end
of the 80s, and with the rapid unraveling of its own Western bloc,
US imperialism formulated a strategic plan which has, in the
ensuing decade, revealed itself more and more openly. Confirmed as
the only remaining superpower, the USA would do everything in its
power to ensure that no new superpower - in reality no new
imperialist bloc - could arise to challenge its 'New World
Order'.(Resolution on the International Situation, Point 4, 15th
Congress of the ICC, March 2003)

The Gulf War of 1991, triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a
development which resulted from a cynical US manipulation of
Saddam Hussein, in which the American ambassador to Iraq induced
Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by giving an apparent green
light to the invasion with an assurance that the US would not
intervene in a border conflict "between Arab brothers,"
was designed by Washington to warn those who would challenge its
hegemony in the post-cold war epoch and press-gang other powers
into endorsing its military action, shouldering considerable
financial burden of the war, and at the same time reminding those
powers that the US was the world's only superpower and would call
the shots in the "New World Order."

Contradictory Impact of US Policy

Illustrating another central characteristic of the current
period, this successful imperialist offensive by US imperialism
proved to be short-lived, provoking increasing resistance from its
former allies, as German, French and even British imperialism
challenged the US in the Balkans under the umbrella of UN
legitimacy. As the Resolution pointed out:

"the more it sought to discipline its former allies, the
more it provoked resistance and hostility, and the less able it
was to recruit them for militaryoperations which they knew were
ultimately aimed against them. Thus the phenomenon of the US being
increasingly obliged to 'go it alone' in its adventures, relying
less and less on 'legal' international structures such as the UN
and NATO, which more and more functioned as obstacles to the US's
plans."(International Situation Resolution, Point 5)

In this sense, the imperialist terrain is defined by growing
chaos in international relations, deepening challenges to American
domination, to which the US feels compelled to respond with the
exercise of military power, more and more on its own (except with
the support of a badly divided British bourgeoisie), which is
always successful because of its massive military superiority, but
quickly provokes increased resistance, aggravates the
international situation and leads to renewed difficulties and
challenges to its imperialist power. Whatever victories US
imperialism achieves in this epoch, they are temporary and of
increasingly short duration, before the onset of a new aggravated
crisis.

Irrationality of War

Another important aspect of the framework of the current period
is the irrationality of war in decadence, particular in its
period of decomposition:

"The period of decomposition shows more clearly than ever
the irratioinality of war in decadence - the tendency of its
destructive dynamic to become autonomous and increasingly at
variance with the logic of profit.The wars of decadence, unlike he
wars of ascendancy, do not make economic sense. Contrary to the
view that war is 'good' for the health of the economy, war today
both expresses and aggravates its incurable sickness..

"War is the ruin of capital - both a product of its
decline and a factor in its acceleration. The development of a
bloated war economy does not offer a solution to the crisis of
capitalism, as certain elements of the Italian Fraction thought in
the 1930s. The war economy does not exist for itself but because
capitalism in decadence is obliged to go through war after war
after war, and to increasingly subsume the entire economy to the
needs of war. This creates a tremendous drain on the economy
because arms expenditure is fundamentally sterile. In this sense
the collapse of the Russian bloc gives us a glimpse into the
future of capital since the inability to sustain an
ever-accelerating arms race was one of the key factors in its
demise. And although this was a result deliberately pursued by the
US bloc, today the USA itself is moving towards a comparable
situation, even if it is at a slower pace. The present war in the
Gulf, and more generally the whole 'war against terror' is linked
to a vast increase of arms spending designed to totally eclipse
the arms budgets of the rest of the world combined. But the damage
that this insane project will inflict on the US economy is
incalculable." (Point 20)

This understanding arms us against following prey to vulgar
materialist errors of looking for crass economic motives in the
unleashing of war in this period, a mistake made by various left
communist and libertarian groups who see the war in Iraq as
undertaken to boost oil profits of American corporations. In this
sense the resolution noted:

"US military action there is not carried out on behalf of
the oil companies: the oil companies are only allowed to get their
pay off provided they fit in with the overall streategic plan,
which includes the ability to shut off oil supplies to America's
potetial enemies and thus throttle any military challenge before
it begins. Germany and Japan in particular are far more dependent
on Middle East oil than the USA."(Point 7)

Even in the short span of the past six months the total falsity
of this mistaken view is apparent. The costs of the war is
currently running $4 billion a month, and increasing sharply in
the months ahead, far outweighs any boost in oil profits
imaginable. If American imperialism's decision making policy on
war were driven strictly by a crass balance sheet calculation,
even Pres. Bush would have the decision to refrain from the
invasion. The unfolding of events confirms our position that it is
the geopolitical imperialist strategy of the US, which sees oil as
a strategic commodity and in which the current US offensive in the
Middle East and Central Asia strengthens Washington's ability to
put pressure on Japan and especially on Europe, that explains why
from the American point of view the disastrous economic costs of
the war are worth the risks.

Constitution of New Blocs

Yet another significant element in this framework is the
recognition of the constant tension between the tendency towards
the constitution of new imperialist blocs and the countervailing
tendency for each country to defend its own immediate interest.

"The resistance to US plans by an alliance between France,
Germany, Russia and China shows that, faced with the massive
superiority of the US, its main rivals have no choice but to band
together against it. This confirms that the tendency towards the
constitution of new imperialist blocs remains a real factor in the
current situation. But it would be a mistake to confuse a tendency
with an accomplished fact, above all because in the period of
capitalist decomposition, the movement towards the formation of
new blocs is being constantly obstructed by the counter-tendency
for each country to defend its own immediate national interests
above all else-by the tendency towards every man for
himself."(Point 9)

Despite the fact that France, Germany, Russia and China could
join together with varying degrees of resolve in opposing the US
war plan last spring, in no way has this led to any acceleration
of the process of bloc formation. With the war a fait accompli,
the opponents of US imperialism moderated the venom of the verbal
attacks on the US and made themselves open to some form of
accommodation. China, for example, cooperated with the US in
discussions with North Korea on the question of that country's
nuclear program, even if China's position is not identical to the
US.

Likewise, while Blair continues to make Britain Washington's
strongest ally, the discomfort within the British bourgeoisie and
the growing criticism of the Blair administration only confirms
the resolution's prediction six months ago that "there is a
growing unease with being too closely associated with US
adventurism. The quagmire now developing in Iraq can only
strengthen this unease." (Point 10)

Acceleration of History

As capitalism's global crisis has deepened in the past three
decades, we have witnessed an acceleration of history, a tendency
for events to unfold more quickly, for the intervals between open
recessions for example to shorten, or between state attacks on the
workers standard of living. In regard to US imperialism's
difficulties in protecting its domination, this tendency has meant
that the length of time between Washington's successes and the new
challenges and difficulties it faces appears to shrink,
aggravating the sense of crisis of leadership as perceived by the
US, and accelerating still further the process by which world
capitalism pushes humanity closer and closer to the abyss of
barbarism.--JG